Massimo Cellino’s first home game as Leeds United owner throws up an interesting comparison, as – despite the recent appeal decision in his favour – the Italian remains under the shadow of Football League action at some point in the next few months. The visitors, Blackpool, have as majority shareholder (and still registered as a director and therefore “fit and proper” in the eyes of the powers that be) convicted rapist Owen Oyston. In a further twist of irony, Oyston’s son Karl sat on the Football League panel that shook its collective head, tut-tutted in righteous disapproval and sighed in a faintly scandalised fashion – as it ruled Cellino disqualified under its Owners and Directors rules, for import duty unpaid in Italy on an American yacht called Nélie.

Let’s start by exploding some myths. There are those who now feel that, since Thursday, when the FL announced it was ratifying Cellino as a Leeds United director, there is nothing further to worry about. This is manifestly untrue, and readers of that brief statement from the Football League will note the presence of giveaway words like “currently”. There is no stick to beat Cellino with at present – but the League are keeping their powder dry and believe me, they mean to get their man, as and when possible. On Thursday, the League merely rubber-stamped Cellino’s current status as fit and proper, having no other choice. He had been found not subject to the OaD disqualifications by a stage of the League’s own process and – for now – that’s it. But if the Italian judge in the Nélie case, Dr Sandra Lepore, in her reasoned judgement, were to impute dishonesty against Cellino, then he had better watch out again. Fortunately, he has some decent lawyers and what looks like a sound defence.

So, that’s the “Massimo is now safe from the League” myth dealt with. Now – what about Oyston? Here we have a convicted rapist who apparently causes the Football League no qualms at all. Ah, but – I hear you say – that conviction was ages ago and it’s “spent” now – so it’s not fair to say that the Football League are being unfair in a comparative sense. The problem with that argument is that it is factually incorrect. Oyston was found guilty of rape – a foul and horrible crime against the person – and sentenced to 6 years in prison. He actually served three years and six months, The rules relating to how convictions become “spent” – i.e. when they do not have to be disclosed in most circumstances and so become less restrictive in terms of professional status etc – are made under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA). In Oyston’s case, it is entirely clear that his offence will never become spent, as he was sentenced to (and actually served) over two and a half years. The other limb of the League’s Owners & Directors test relates to “dishonesty” – and it is this provision that threatens to snare our Massimo. As for Oyston – if it is to be argued that rape is not a dishonest act, then surely what should really be on trial here is the set of regulations that permits such a grotesque result in the first place. Can you really have an “honest” rapist??

Given that the League – which argued its case in front of Tim Kerr QC with unprecedented zeal and was not above the odd dodgy trick either – seem determined to “get” Cellino, then why, we are surely justified in asking, do they not display a similar determination to rid themselves of a character like Oyston? And yet that question never arises, except in this and other blogs who seem to feel there’s a blatant contradiction here.

Is it because Oyston was convicted before the Owners and Directors rules were laid down? That dog won’t bite, I’m afraid. One of the salient points to emerge from the Cellino appeal was that the OaD rules are on-going in their application. In other words, should any owner or director be found to rest within the scope of disqualification at any time, then the League can consider that person under OaD – and act accordingly. So, after all that – why is there no action against Oyston? And why, on the other hand, is there such a remorseless determination to exclude Cellino?

Some will point out that Oyston has always maintained his innocence and has persisted with all possible avenues of appeal. As regards his protestations – well, to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies in the Profumo case, “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” The appeal options have availed Oyston naught. He lost in the Court of Appeal and he lost again at the European Court of Human Rights, which held that his appeal was “manifestly ill-founded”. Given all of that, the Football League would appear on the face of it to have some explaining to do, as to why they continue blithely to ignore the fact that they are, in effect, nurturing a rapist viper in the bosom of their “football family”.

As Blackpool visit Leeds United on Saturday, the two contradictory sides of this whole issue are brought into close contact, whether both parties are actually present at the match or not. The more that Leeds United fans get to know Massimo Cellino, the more warmly he is regarded. His deeds in the short period of his control have more than matched the words he uttered beforehand. He has cleared off at least two debts that could have led to Leeds United being wound-up and going to the wall (whether in their heart of hearts the League mandarins consider this to be A Good Thing will probably remain moot). But Cellino is undeniably acting as a fit and proper owner should, in protecting the best interests of his club. Our various owners in recent history have signally failed to do this; indeed the newly released financial results for the most recent period available cast severe doubt on the fitness of GFH to run a piss-up in a brewery, never mind a leading football club. Which begs more questions: why were the Football League not more diligent in investigating GFH? Or Ken Bates? Why pursue the one man who is ready, willing and able – through his own resources – to steer Leeds United away from crisis?

The Football League, instead of sulking about their appeal defeat, need to look at this whole picture – including some of the dubious characters currently infesting boardrooms up and down the land. They need to be very sure that they are pursuing rectitude and not a vendetta. The upshot should be that they act fairly – and are seen to be acting fairly. It might seem, on the face of it, rather unfair to drag Oyston’s name into all of this, when he’s served his time and so on. But it’s the League who have to carry the can for that as well, in allowing such seemingly blatant contradictions to persist. They have hung Mr Oyston out to dry, simply by giving the appearance of leaving him – a convicted rapist and guilty under the law of a foul and disgusting crime – in undisturbed peace, whilst harassing Cellino at every turn as he tries to do thousands of people a good turn by saving their beloved football club.

It simply doesn’t add up, and the Football League would appear to be bang to rights on the most glaring double standards rap you could possibly imagine. I hope that these arguments can eventually be put directly to a responsible person in the League – perhaps by a Leeds area MP willing to take up cudgels on the club’s behalf. And I hope we get some answers because – again, on the face of it – Leeds United could very well lose their saviour in the next few months, under the least transparent and most unfair set of circumstances imaginable.

Do these arrogant, faceless people really imagine that we’re going to tolerate that?

While we’re talking club owners and their ‘fitness’, morality-wise, to own clubs in this country, Manchester City had Thaksin Shinawatra – condemned by Amnesty international for his human-rights record – and where & how do the Premier League think Roman Abramovich made the billions that have bought Chelsea’s success? By backing that nice Mr Putin when the obscene carve-up of the former Soviet Union’s natural resources began.

When the soviet union broke up, shares were issued to all the various workers in the old state industries. Abromvich been management was in charge of the wages at sibfnet, which apparently they couldn’t pay for months on end. Coincidentally at the same time he also opened up all these share shops, where workers could exchange their shares for hard cash to feed their families.

Cellino is a wily dog i.e. there is method to his madness. I’m sure he is plotting with his team of lawyers possible scenarios come the next concerted effort to get him ousted.
He’s the kind of guy who will take the FL on. Ironically because he comes across as being honest and outspoken and intolerant of duplicity – which runs rife throughout the FL.
The fact that his is outspoken and wears his heart on his sleeve this has undoubtedly made him enemies (in Italy). Then for every dozen great quotes and positive soundbites, there are one or two which are badly misjudged e.g. comparing Cagliari cinquecento. That didn’t go down too well in Italy.
Whatever one’s final verdict about Cellino and it is currently too early to say, one cannot accuse him of hiding in the shadows. That in itself is a positive sign. Self publicist supremo, he is not to be underestimated. A character created for the big stage.
Oysten and his like are merely sewer rats. Enough said.

you answer your own question with the remark that Cellinio has money and influence and will steer Leeds away from the trouble they are in. Manifestly against what the League want, they want Leeds whipped and broken and that has been clear for many years. The man at sheffield wendies has a colourful background as well ???? no problem for the league ?????. perhaps there have not been any or enough brown paper envelopes being left on the right desks ??????

So true – you can do this with at least 10 owners in the premiership/championship. Lets start with Mr Abramovich

He denies that he helped himself to Mr Berezovsky’s interests in Sibneft and aluminium or that he threatened a friend of the exile. “It is denied that Mr Abramovich made or was party to the alleged explicit or implicit coercive threats or intimidation,” he states.

personally rob I feel that we are home and dry. Think the fl’s creepy little sound bites are more to do with trying to save face after their attempt to destroy Leeds United spectaculary backfired in their faces.
Ive been bombarding the YEP with requests for them to do something useful for once and name and shame the ex leeds board member who got the staggering bonus in last years accounts. Pretty sure it was the repulsive toad of toad hall lookalike – harvey. Could do with a quality blogger like yourself to join my personal campaign (vendetta) against this man and destroy what little reputation he has left.

That’s a very kind comment – but I’ve been a bit down on vendettas lately in my gripes against the Football League! If there’s anything I really CAN do to help in any serious attempt you’re making to make life a little less comfortable for Harvey, please do let me know.

Philby, Abramovich was a beneficiary of conditions laid down by the “international community” when they “rescued” Russia’s from a financial situation. Privatisation is one, if not the most important, of the conditions normally sought by the “benevolent” financial institutions normally found to inhabit the western world. They happen to work best when they have a pliable leader in place. In this instance, you will find it was the conveniently and constantly inebriated Boris Yeltsin. That is when Abramovich ascended to the class of the fiithy rich. Putin was just a twinkle in the eye at the time and most probably sober as well.

I would suggest that as a Leeds fan who has endured the brunt of a media onslaught occasioned by the general distaste for anyone foreign, that you would at least have learnt to distinguish propaganda from fact. Hypocrisy and downright nastiness is always at the root of any seemingly complex situation that the media reports.

Rob has identified the herd of elephants, better still mammoths, in the room as far the debate on Massimo is concerned. Note that the Guardian et al chose to ignore those facts when campaigning to keep Leeds in their place. There was and has been no mention of the fact that Massimo and Leed’s welfare was placed in the hands of people that see nothing untoward with the Oyston family’s participation in being party to determining our plight.

Thanks again Rob for highlighting hypocrisy and bulls*#t time and time again. Toryboy Haigh springs to mind as another one you identified as being somewhat unsuited to the task in hand.

Your article is very well written.The first thing I said to my mate when it all blew up was that the FA couldn’t, run a piss up in a brewery and you have clearly spelled that out.
You use the expression ,vendetta, which I firmly believe the FA we’re pursuing.
In the end I strongly feel the FA have completely lost all credibility
That is if they had any in the first place.

Owen Oyston is not a ‘Fit and Proper’ person in any ones eyes. He was forced to relinquish control of Blackpool F.C. to his wife who was hounded out by the fans and then control passed to the even more hated Karl Oyston, who despite being as welcome as a skunk in a submarine has no rape convictions hanging over him. Owen was also forced to give up control of a radio station and broadcasting licences as an unfit person. You are unlikely to find any Blackpool fan (myself included) with any sympathy or respect for any of the clan Oyston with now the next unpleasant generation getting his repulsive kicks by bating fans on social media. It is unfortunate that most wealthy men have got skeletons in the closet and if Cellino’s worst one is not paying tax then he will stand saint like above most other odious owners and chairmen.
Sean H

Didn’t Karl Oyston do something dodgy with avoiding paying maintenance to his ex wife and kids? I’ve heard something about them using the parachute payment to prop up their understandably failing estate agency too, after all who the hells gonna buy / sell a house via a known rapist? They sound a nightmare, you have my sympathies. No one wants people like that associated with their club, if the Football League were “fit and proper” they would force them to sell.

Even if the worst came to be in June and MC was ousted from being deemed fit and proper to serve as a director it will be too late for the FL. By mid June we will own both Elland Road & Thorp Arch, have no debts, a new exciting first team squad ( including Lionel Messi!!) and new ‘coach’ Alessandro Del Pierro.

Leeds will NEVER get a fair deal from these gutless cretins.
I just hope that one they are ripped wide open by a whistleblower….
We can all see what’s going on and one day the truth will hopefully be revealed…. Mot

I sent this e-mail yesterday to John Whittingdale, Chair of the Culture Media and Sports Committee. His e-mail address is cmscom@parliament.uk, I sent it before hearing that the FL had for the time being ratified Mr Cellino’s ownership of the club. The e-mail was not acknowledged.

Dear Mr Whittingdale

I am writing to express my concern’s at the Football League’s ( now to be addressed as the FL ) attempts to block Massimo Cellino’s take over of Leeds United Football Club ( now to be addressed as LUFC ).

Never have they so rigorously pursued a person’s attempt to purchase a football club, as they have in the case of Mr Cellino. Indeed they have allowed a convicted rapist to own Blackpool Football Club, and the now owner,his son, is a member of the FL board conspiring to prevent Mr Cellino’s take over.

They allowed a man to purchase Birmingham City Football Club who is now languishing in a Chines prison, for the offense of money laundering millions of pounds. Have the FL disqualified him from ownership of the club ? no they have not, they are satisfied that the club is being correctly run.

There have been many more cases where the FL have allowed persons of dubious character to become the owner’s of football clubs.

They allowed Bates to pass their test and take over LUFC, and look what a job he did, milked the club for all he could.

They then allowed GFH to purchase the club, probably the poorest Arab business men in the world. Their only intention was to get rid of the club as soon as they could and make a fast buck, with no real investment put in.

The accounts now show that LUFC have been losing money on a large scale, whilst GFH have been in charge, either through poor management or as a result of dishonesty.

Had the FL been so keen to vet GFH, then they would never have let them buy the club, but there again Bates was involved. I feel that the FL are culpable for the situation LUFC were in before the recent takeover,

How can it be right and proper for a board made up of owners and managers of football clubs from the same league, to sit in judgement of another football club. They can not ever be impartial.

Why should Harvey, Mr Bates friend and right hand man, who left LUFC with bad feeling and joined the board of the FL, be allowed to judge the new owner of LUFC, he certainly has an axe to grind and can not be impartial.

I feel that the FL for many years have had a vendetta against LUFC, and feel that they would be very happy to see the club go into administration and possible liquidation.

It is so ironic, that the FL’s only objection to Mr Massino’s take over was the alleged evasion of import duty on a Yacht. But when he gets LUFC, the accounts show that GFH had failed to pay Custom and Revenue £500,000 by the given dead line, and that winding up proceedings had commenced. I am sure to the glee of the FL.

Who signed the cheque, and prevented the legal action and saved the club ? Mr Cellino, the man accused of tax evasion, I am sure the FL are devastated by that.

I, like many believe that the board of the FL are dishonest to the core, I wish to officially demand an enquiry into each member, as to their dealing’s with Bates, Harvey, Haigh and GFH. I want them to explain their motives for decision’s against Mr Cellino and LUFC, and as to why they have allowed those with far more serious convictions to take control of football clubs.

Also the rules should be changed, football clubs should not be permitted to Police football clubs, there are vast amounts of money involved, and money corrupts.

Your interpretation may be correct but the conclusion the the FL is ‘determined to get Cellino’ seems to be based on one statement put out for public consumption. There has been a constituency of opinion, fed in part by our own dear fans and the popular media, that he is unsuitable. The FL would have faced that challenge in spades if they had not ruled against him, but perhaps were always prepared to let this through on appeal in light of the looming admin whilst at the same time spinning the ‘disappointed’ PR message. It’s surely in their interests, and ours, for this issue to quietly disappear from the back pages, and hope for an Italian fudge in June? Having said that, if you’re accusation of the FL is correct, they better remember that vendetta was an Italian invention.

Disqualifying condition g disqualifies a “Registered Offender” – “‘Registered Offender’ means any person who is required to notify personal information to the police in accordance with Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof.”

Disqualifying condition h disqualifies anyone “having an unspent conviction … for any offence anywhere in the World … where such conviction has resulted in a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment [ not including suspended sentences ]”.

I have no idea whether Oyston is a Registered Offender but he would be disqualified under DQ h. Presumably despite being a majority shareholder he is allowed via a blind trust. I seem to remember this came up when Blackpool were in the Premiership and he was allowed, having had his directorship predate the test (but this is not how the rules are meant to work, they are meant to activate at any time you enter a disqualified state).

Note there was also controversy when Blackpool were in the Premiership as they spent nothing on players and declared a hefty dividend, most of which went to one O. Oyston.

Bates said at one point he had studied the Blackpool economic model and planned to use it at Leeds. Nuff said.

Anyhow, what this shows is that the rules are there but once a director is in place, they become very difficult to enforce, because they’re out of step with the company law of England & Wales.

Written from the heart as usual Rob, Im sure the half a dozen Tangerines at ER tomorrow will thank you for the timely reminder of their Uriah Heap figurehead, and reminding them that he truly reflects their small club, grubby, greasy, grimy and in need of a wash. To answer Max`s query regarding whether this odious little man is on any offenders register I think you will discover that he will have been, but if deemed not to be a threat to women after serving his sentence, he may well have been removed. I suppose the saving grace for his victim is he will have this act in his slimy mind until he shakes hands with the Devil.
The discussion regarding whether his crime is dishonest is a grey area within law, and almost impossible to prove (great minds have tried and failed), however, you could say lying is dishonest, (such a fine dotted line) as he did in his initial court case, as he was found guilty, but oh so difficult to prove! So as I see it, the gerrymandering corpulent asses at the FA will find it very difficult to prove that Cellinio and his lawyers did anything of the kind! Im positive Cellinio and his team will understand this regarding the law, and I am sure they will be prepared, whatever the outcome in Italia.

The FL are capable of doing many things badly. If they were to contest Cellino as being unfit for misdemeanours at some future date would this not create a legal precedence whereby all owners and directors would be subject to a retrospective review of their fitness on a periodic basis? The legal vultures would love this and make a fortune both defending and accusing the football league of double standards. Massimo is quickly proving to be no fool (security sweep of elland road by his team reveals hidden cameras) and has shown he is up for and capable of winning a fight. In one sense I hope the FL go down this road because it may just be the stick that stirs the hornets nest. The FL fat-cats have a lot to lose if they get this wrong. Arses would be twitching.

Cellino has got through the test and bought the shares. Just possibly, the FL can prevent him from buying the remaining 25% later, but who cares?
Of course you’re right about the test being badly designed in the first place. Such things are a legal nightmare and sorting out a working test is obviously too difficult for the people involved. But that’s not the point: Cellino has got in, and forcing him to sell shares will be difficult or impossible, just as they can’t force Yeung, Oyston, etc, out.

All we can do now is watch events unfold. Either Cellino will be terrible for Leeds or he won’t. There’s also the possibility that the Premier League will look at Blackpool, Leeds, and so on, and fix up a Fit And Proper Clubs test and deny promotion to those who fail, or possibly even cancel promotion and make clubs apply for election. I, of course, expect that Cellino will be terrible, and hope that the PL do something. You, of course, expect and hope the reverse. (Neither of us expect the PL to do anything except count money.)

And yet the FL reps were inviting Kerr QC to find against Cellino on a contingency basis (in case Dr Lepore DOES impute dishonesty) – rather than “have to make him step down at a later date”. It’s all rather odd – but my reading of Kerr’s judgement persuades me that, if there are nasties in Dr Lepore’s reasoned decision, then Cellino fails qualification at that point.

Of course — hold him at bay if you can’t disqualify him, that was the veiled request to Kerr. As for failing qualification later, so what? Honest Massimo has a number of charges hanging over him. He’s the kind of rich man who hates paying tax, and he’ll probably be convicted of it again. It doesn’t matter, because to get him out the FL would need to find some way to force him to sell his shares. They’ll be hit with the mother of all lawsuits if they try, and MC can show that plenty of others would fail the test.

As I’ve said before, we can’t expect the FL to get someone out, just stop them getting in. There’s no way to do it. Read Phil Hay’s Twitter feed, he says the same thing. Fait accompli, 2-0 to Cellino.

Anyway, the FL may want us hobbled, because they want us oscillating between the Championship and League 1. The PL will want us to get into their league and stay there, because revenue from attendances and TV revenue would increase.

For a reluctant payer, John, he’s been doing little else but settle other people’s bills ever since he clapped eyes on Elland Road. £500k to HMRC last week, was it, and another winding-up petition nipped in the bud?? We’d be looking proper poorly without him. I’ve been looking forward to hearing your views on Cameragate and the no doubt coincidental departure of Haigh. Did Mr Colgate have a toilet fetish?? He IS a prospective Tory MP, after all…

As I think I have suggested before if there is an attempt by the FL to deem Mr Cellino unfit and improper then he can always revert to an adviser to the Board a la Ridsdale at PNE, stick 2 fingers up to them by appointing his daughter’s backside as his replacement director.
Let’s leave the past behind my friend and look to a surge of adrenalin next season. Here we go with Leeds United…………

Has become a soap opera this week. Massimo has not stepped out of line – he paid the HM tax , got Haigh out of the way and is investigating the a/V system – I wonder if Bates planted them form over his Subway office?

Apart from all this lets not forget BMc who is fighting for his survival?
Result :Leeds 4 – Pool 0

It should be asked why Shaun Harvey went to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia whilst the League’s decision on Massimo was pending. I happen to know he was part of a plot to broker the sale of the club to a group including a Manchester based-business man, South Africans linked to Lucas Radebe and Malaysian oil money (and presumably benefit therefrom).
I know this to be true from my own business dealings in the country and Harvey should be called to account for it. Why he wasn’t forced to recuse himself given his obvious history with our club is another palpable injustice.

Thank God, the QC was not a stooge to their machinations – please keep us away from Harvey, Bates, GFH and their ways.

Carson Yeung, the owner of Birmingham City got jailed for 6 years for money laundering, a dishonest crime would you not say? He hasn’t been disqualified as the owner of the club! As for the League’s reasoning behind Oyston being left in peace, ‘The rules of the OaD test were not in place when he committed his crime’ is farcical in itself. Why then were Leeds United docked 15 points in league one when we broke a certain rule about exiting admin without a CVA, a rule that wasn’t in place when we ‘broke’ it? I would love it if MP’s took the football league to the higher powers as they seem to contradict themselves at every turn, relax their own rules for some and tighten the same rules for others. In other words, they are corrupt beyond belief and should never be allowed to govern anything, let alone four divisions of the greatest game on the planet!